Thursday, 29 September 2011

Living in a mass consumption society, we have grown accustomed to words like 'value for money'. This expression is applied to practically everything, including healthcare.

Suddenly, we hear even British doctors saying that keeping a human being alive is not value for money and stating that adding another day to a human being’s life is too expensive. This kind of expressions remind me of Nazi health economics, when school children were asked to calculate how much money could be saved by destroying the lives of disabled human beings.

Life is sacred. Life is not about value for money. Decisions about healthcare based on money are a slippery slope towards a dehumanised society and are made in ignorance of the sacred value of life. The aim of constant medical research is not about money. It is about Life.

If we stop eating because it costs money, we wouldn’t be alive. Health is not a business concern. Health is a fundamental priority.

When we look at countries like the United States of America that are still living in the Middle Ages when it comes to providing healthcare to its citizens, we value our National Healthcare System.

The NHS is not a business. The NHS is not about value for money. The NHS is about Life itself.

Monday, 26 September 2011

Within 24 hours, we have seen the Leader of the Labour Party and the Shadow Home Secretary criticizing the Labour government for its stance on immigration and now… we see none other than multibillionaire Margaret Hodge coming out with guns blazing criticizing Labour’s stance on immigration and taking the clothes of the British National Party. I don’t assume that Margaret Hodge could have said what she is saying now when she campaigned in Barking and Dagenham.

She says now “I think Labour should stop talking numbers. We should set up a system that allows a fairer allocation of limited resources because we have to have some form of rationing. There needs to be a system that gives some recognition to the length of time that someone has lived in the community when it comes to resources such as housing.”

Well, Margaret Hodge, welcome to the British National Party Manifesto. Should we remind Margaret Hodge who were the people that lived in Barking and Dagenham for the longer length of time before her political party opened the floodgates of immigration?

She then somehow contradicts herself and says ‘immigrant numbers are simply a result of globalisation and people will come here, one way or another’. Bitte, Frau Oppenheimer. Das ist nicht richtig! Wir sagen "it is up to the British people to decide who lives in Britain and who doesn’t. Don’t use Globalisation as an excuse to implement your policies of colonisation. It is up to the British people to decide who comes here and who doesn’t.

Has Margaret Hodge also forgotten how she managed to win the 2010 Barking and Dagenham Election? There is a BBC recording where we heard her saying something like ‘if they win, they will carry you on airplanes and throw you into the sea’. I don’t remember any of the so called free media or any member of the so called mainstream political parties or of the so called politically correct society criticizing what she said that in my view is nothing less than gross incitement to violence.

She goes even further and says ‘the amount of support I received from people in my constituency was extraordinary. The amount of open support I received from Westminster was zilch’. Well, what kind of support she was talking about? Did she need any support?

In terms of financial support, I don’t think Margaret Hodge needs any more money than the money she already has. In terms of political support, she had several para-political organizations, including the BBC, working for her. In terms of constituent numbers the woman that said that she didn’t need any white working class had more than enough non-white working class to help her, facilitated by flood immigration that started as soon as the Labour party became government in 1997.

Phoney candidate Margaret Hodge now criticizes both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party saying that they had a phoney war about numbers. She only mentioned housing and she conveniently forgot to mention the Welfare State that is the main attraction for Globalised mass migration.

As Baroness Shreela Flather denounced just a few days ago, immigration is a business for unscrupulous Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and others that use Polygamy as an excuse to milk the welfare state by having several wives claiming benefits and housing as single mothers. We should find out about Barking and Dagenham and about many of Margaret Hodge's constituents.

I wouldn't call ethnic cleansing 'a result of Globalisation'. I would call it a result of organized crime committed by a Labour government that used the Welfare State for its own political ends. Those who have lived in Britain for longer have been persecuted and called 'racists, nazis, fascists and bigots' simply because they have tried to stand up for their own rights.

Labour brought in the so called 'Positive Discrimination' and as a consequence of 'Positive Discrimination' entire communities have been decimated and more than 80 per cent of all jobs created in Britain in recent years have ended up in foreign hands. So, what? Has Margaret Hodge seen the light?

Stemcor, her family company, was the world's largest privately owned steel-trading corporation with an annual turnover of £6.28 billion in 2008. When the Labour Party was in the red, she could have lifted the Labour Party out of debt single-handedly and it would have been pocket money for her. Did she? No, she didn't. She pursued her own interests in 'business dealings' in Barking and Dagenham and elsewhere. Eine grosse Scheiße diese Frau ist!

Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper publicly declared that the immigration boom DID drive down wages and living standards and said that the Labour government 'got it wrong' on border controls and said that British workers had been 'undercut'.

A national newspaper indicates that documents commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government revealed that immigrants from certain countries had low education levels and were more likely to claim unemployment benefits.

Grant Shapps, present Housing Minister, is repoted to have said that 'this is another disturbing cover-up by a Labour Party that failed in immigration and then tried to bury the truth.'

In terms of cover-ups (remember Blue Tongue and Foot and Mouth Disease), Labour is an expert in hiding the truth and we are waiting to see the link between a bill that went through Parliament to supposedly promote Trade Unions and Trade Union donations to the Labour Party.

I am not sure that BBC Panorama would like to investigate the 'financial affairs' of the Labour Party.

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

When the fight gets harder, the time comes to be tougher. You care. Join the fight. What counts above everything else is that we are still here. I see those who give up or walk away and turn against their comrades by helping the opposition. Many talk about heroism and then they fail to live up to the standards that they themselves so much spoke about.

There is one BNP and we are in it. I am not playing for positions. I don't complain about personal grievances. The party is bigger than any personal grievance and those who fail to understand this most fundamental truth fail as Nationalists.

Everytime I see people giving up or walking away and becoming useful fools working for the opposition, I remember the words: "England expects that every man will do his duty". I remember the verses of "IF", a poem written by Rudyard Kippling. This is our Trafalgar and our HMS Victory is called BNP.

Ignorance is at the root of comments made by some political commentators and bloggers when they mention the outcome of elections in the United Kingdom.

They compare the outcome of General Elections and the outcome of European Elections that cannot possibly be compared because they are run using different electoral systems and are not comparable in terms of the size of constituencies.

In General Elections there have been more than 600 different constituencies electing representatives using First-past-the-post and in European Elections about seventy representatives are elected from constituencies that include areas where the BNP would not stand in a General Election.

In 2010, the British National Party obtained the biggest number of votes obtained by the BNP in a General Election. In fact, in 2001 the BNP obtained 47,129 votes, in 2005 the BNP got 192,745 and in 2010 the BNP received 563,743 votes.

Under the previous leader of the BNP, the maximum number of votes the BNP got was 35,832. Under Nick Griffin, the BNP received 563,743.

Success in European Elections has also been remarkable. There were 102,647 votes in 1999, 808,200 votes in 2004 and 943,598 votes in 2009. These are not the kind of numbers obtained by a dying political party.

And what has happened to the National Front? The maximum number of votes obtained by NF was 27,065 and this happened in the General Election of 1983. In European Elections, the maximum number was 12,469 in 1994.

Talking about EDP, the maximum number of votes was 64,826 in 2010 and in a recent election in Enfield they only managed to obtain 21 votes.

The only one contender that for financial reasons and because of media support competes with the BNP is UKIP that in a General Election reached the mark of 920,334 and in European Elections reached the mark of 2,650,768 in 2004 and 2,498,226 in 2010.

Having said that, when you look at the record in General Elections there are no major differences. In 2010, UKIP got 920,334 and the BNP got 563,743. What is the major difference? In 2005, UKIP had 605,973 while in 2005 the BNP had only 192,745.

Compare the figures and you see that in 2010 the BNP vote was almost three times higher than it was in 2005.

Political operators that hate the success of the BNP want to make you believe that what happened in 2010 in Barking and Dagenham and in some other parts of the UK is representative of the support the British National Party has. Wrong! Support for the BNP at National Level went up from 192,745 to 563,743 in General Elections and from 808,200 to 943,598 in European Elections.

For these successes to occur, the process of modernisation of the British National Party has been essential and a sine qua non requirement to widen support for the BNP. Those who criticize the BNP talk about 'not alienating the core vote'. What core vote? What are they talking about?

Let's look at the figures of Electoral results since 1983.

1983 - 14,621 (John Tyndall)

1987 - 553 (John Tyndall)

1992 - 7,631 (John Tyndall)

1997 - 35,832 (John Tyndall)

2001 - 47,129 (Nick Griffin)

2005 - 192,745 (Nick Griffin)

2010 - 563,743 (Nick Griffin)

The process of modernisation started in 1999 meant that the BNP could move forward getting rid of the restraints imposed by the xenophobia of earlier years. Many of the critics of the present administration never left the National Front. They are still very much anchored in the past.

What is even worse, they stop at nothing. They even go as far as favouring the discourse of left-wing organisations whose sole purpose is to destroy a successful British National Party.

The party that according to its detractors had disastrous results in 2010 never had a core vote. Moreover, looking at official figures the number of those ready and willing to vote BNP is rising. There are natural differences between the number of votes in a General Election and the number of votes in European Elections.

I include numbers for the so called mainstream political parties and for other political parties including the BNP. Since 1994, the number of people willing to vote Labour in European Elections has been consistently falling reaching the lowest mark in 2009 with 2,381,760 while in General Elections the minimum has been not less than 8,000,000.

Looking at BNP numbers, BNP votes have been rising both in General Elections and in European Elections. What happened in Barking and Dagenham in 2010 had nothing to do with core votes because the BNP does not have a core vote. Guess what? Despite the events of Barking and Dagenham, the BNP went from 192,745 in 2005 up to 563,743 in 2010. In 2010, the BNP got almost three times the number of votes that the BNP got in 2005 and this is 370,998 more votes in 2010 than in 2005 in a General Election.

The core vote is a myth and the figures tell you that the announced demise of the BNP is also a fantasy. In actual fact, the process of modernisation meant that the BNP started to see a dramatic increase in the number of votes. In the old BNP, according to electoral figures, in 1983 there were 14,621. It practically collapsed in 1987 with merely 553 votes. It came back from the dead in 1992, year in which Nick Griffin joined the BNP. In 1997, the BNP figures went up to 35,832. In 2001, with Nick Griffin at the helm, there were 47,129, followed by 192,745 in 2005 and 563,743 in 2010.

Once again, all the talk about core vote is sheer nonsense. People are not voting for the old failed 1930s nonsense. The successes of the BNP, as official electoral figures show, came hand in hand with the process of modernisation. Those who want old style ideologies should also look at the figures of moderate politics and old style politics.

The records show the differences between the BNP and NF. While NF struggled to reach the mark of 10,000 votes, the BNP reached half a million and more. Talking about alternative solutions like EDP, once again, look at the electoral records. The British people don't want foreign ideological remnants of World War Two. They want a true British National Party based on British ideas and focused on British solutions for British problems.

Monday, 19 September 2011

Looking at the range of organizations usually counted among those that are thought to be Nationalist alternatives, one organization in particular (and I will not mention it by name) seems to be in dire straits.

A prominent figure resigned in the middle of an Identity crisis created by working contacts with a left-wing magazine directed by a left-wing convicted criminal, contacts with Northern Ireland’s movements and doubts about incorporating former members of another political party that are seen as having conflicting interests created by present contractual working arrangements and by a non politically correct background.

We can see that all the aforementioned would constitute ‘stored seeds of trouble’ that could ruin the ‘clean image’ of the said organization. Those who want to be seen as ‘civilized option’ don’t want to be ‘polluted by right-wing elements’ that given their expertise could very well end up taking over the organization. If there ever was an identity crisis, this is it.

The next thing we might hear about might have to do with links with other political parties, including UKIP or the security establishment and this does not sound very promising for the said organization that some struggle to portray as an alternative to the British National Party.

Undoubtedly, this is a time for definitions. We see it at national level with the Conservatives wanting to be Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats still trying to decide where they are and the Labour Party cut in the middle between its Leadership and the Trade Union movement.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the issue of identity is being debated within the nationalist movement as a whole and some of the conclusions a prominent resigning member of the said organization arrives to would be strikingly similar to some of our own conclusions.

There is some sort of comfort linked to living in the past and many talk about the core vote without realising that the so called core vote actually amounts to percentages that would get very few people elected or none at all.

Somebody, who is very much stuck in the past, even said: “adaptation to changing circumstances is a gamble and we shouldn’t gamble because it would alienate the core vote”.

Personally, I think that adopting rational attitudes is not a gamble. Rational attitudes are an absolute necessity for anybody wanting to play a role in British politics. Ideological Purity based on anachronisms and images that the vast majority of the population reject is merely political suicide.

The said resigning figure of the said organization understood that the incorporation of elements of the past would simply transform the said organization into a carbon copy of things he and others do not want to be associated with.

We can turn this issue upside down and sideways and it would still be an issue of identity and identity is linked to public perception. If we are talking about change and about new options, we cannot be attached to old imagery.

Xenophobia, racism and the like are not merely words. Those of us who don’t want to be labelled need to understand that talking about change is not nearly enough. Res non verba (Facts and not merely words). This is not about core votes. This is about change to transform a political oddity into a rational organization able to play a real role in British politics.

At present, we have a ruling coalition. British politics has changed. It could well be the case that the next government will also be a coalition and that ruling coalitions become the new constant. If the bipolar system is finished and what we have is an ensemble of smaller parties, negotiation and adaptation will be the only way forward.

With the reduction of the number of Members of the House of Commons from 650 to 600, the struggle for votes will be ever more intense. If you combine this with fragmentation of mainstream political parties, you could see smaller political parties playing a greater role.

Friday, 16 September 2011

Many years ago, working for the Central Office of Information, a dependency of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I presented a television programme about Baroness Shreela Flather, today’s Mayor of Windsor and Maidenhead, that incidentally was the first Asian woman member of the House of Lords.

Today, I read an article written by Shreela Flather in which she denounces abuses committed by some migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh that have transformed what she described as modern welfare state with noble ideals into a lucrative racket for claimants who lack any sense of social responsibility.

Baroness Flather adds that the subject has been avoided as a taboo subject for far too long because of sensitivities about the issue of race. As I said in Parliament, writes Baroness Flather, “there is growing wealth of evidence that the generosity of the welfare state encourages some Muslims from these two regions (Pakistan and Bangladesh) – along with plenty of white families – to produce ever larger families in order to claim extra payments and publicly-subsidized housing.”

Thanks to polygamy, indicates Baroness Flather, many women are being brought to Britain from the said countries and used to procreate children with the sole purpose of exploiting the welfare system that considers them as ‘single mothers’ because polygamy is not legally recognized in Britain.

She explains that one man can have several women with children, all claiming welfare benefits. What is more, Baroness Shreela Flather says that some time ago she discovered that in one street of a town in Yorkshire all residents are Pakistani women with children and there are no men living in the street.

Baroness Shreela Flather, first Asian female Member of the House of Lords, says ‘We cannot continue like this. The misuse of welfare among some Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and others has to be challenged, for the practice seriously undermines the social contract upon which the British welfare system is based.”

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

The news is that Birmigham City Council changed its application system and that the British Legion will not be allowed to collect money in the run-up to November 13. The legion is not permitted to collect anywhere in the city on 12 November.

Given the dates and the charity involved, one would have thought that Birmingham City Council would have remembered that Birmingham is in the United Kingdom.

One also hopes that, despite the reasons given for the cancellation, there are no other reasons why Birmingham City Council would be willing to stop the British Legion from collecting money during the said time of the year.

As BNP London Organiser, I - Steve Squire - say that we are BNP in bad times and we are BNP in good times, as then Chris Roberts, BNP Acting London Organiser, told us in June 2010, right after the General Election and after an appearance in BBC Question Time.

"Foreword by Chris Roberts Acting London Organiser

Our enemies and the enemies of the British people have written us off, "the BNP in London is finished they gloat"! At May's 2010 Mayor's Question Time Conservative and Labour GLA Assembly members were congratulating themselves that we now have no BNP councillors in London.

I argued long before the recent elections that it is still not our time, holding a General Election at the same time as Council elections was always going to hurt our vote. The first past the post system is very difficult to overcome, yet we still polled brilliantly and our core vote held up very well. Remember Gordon Brown has poured millions of taxpayers' money into the system to keep it afloat prior to the election. The bill for all that is still be paid and paying it off by the CONDEMS will cause immense hurt to Working and Middle class alike.

The Front National had their vote squeezed in France 2 elections back and polled badly, however, as Sarkozy failed to deliver the goods, millions of French people flocked back to vote for Jean Marie Le Pen in their 2010 elections. The CONDEMS will also be unable to deliver, being signed up to Globalisation as all the Westminster Traitor parties are means there medicine for our ills is more of the same poison previously administered by the recent Labour Government.

2012 could be a year of a major breakthrough for London BNP, the London GLA elections are fought on a proportional representation basis which greatly assists our chances. But to maximize our vote every single Branch, Group, Contact and individual in London will have to contribute, without that it will not be possible to make an even bigger breakthrough than 2008, we have all worked so hard to further our party, now is the time to dig really deep and fight back with every ounce of out strength. That's why we must start now for 2012. In this booklet I have set out a team of individuals who will form the committee to put our 2012 campaign in action from September 2010 others will from time to time be co-opted on as the campaign develops. Everyone can contribute with ideas and suggestions, I want all members of London BNP to buy in to our campaign as we all work hard to make our Capital City a place to be treasured and proud to be a Londoner.

So come on everyone don't wait to be asked, lets deliver a massive BNP vote in the capital and stick 2 fingers up to the LIBLABCOM traitors who have so smugly written us off! Remember the old adage "DON'T GET MAD GET EVEN"."

Saturday, 10 September 2011

The reactions of certain mass media and left-wing organizations never cease to amaze us. For many years, they criticized the British National Party for not being 'inclusive'. Trevor Phillips even took the BNP to court, having criticized the BNP for not being 'inclusive'. What all of them - the mass media, left-wing organizations and Trevor Phillips - did not see is that, despite statements and declarations, the British National Party had been 'inclusive' for many years while they - the mass media, left-wing organizations and Trevor Phillips - had kept an outdated set of perceptions about the BNP.

The writings of organizations that actively campaign against the BNP very much reflect the said outdated set of perceptions and, when suddenly the list of BNP candidates does not fit in with the outdated perceptions, they are shocked. Having said that, there is no denying that still certain elements within the nationalist movement are stuck in the past.

When something worth reporting happens, instead of showing the real British National Party, they prefer to report about the said elements that have not made the transition between the 1930s and the Twenty-First Century. There is no denying either that moderate elements within the British National Party had to face an uphill struggle and it surprises us that the mass media, when taking sides, prefers to support the more extreme elements within the nationalist movement in their thirst for news.

We don't think that this approach driven by outdated views is going to change any time soon. In fact, as trust in the established political parties collapses, mass media operators and left-wing organizations become ever more desperate. They invented a boogieman that did not exist and now they panic thinking about it.

The question arises: if faith in the established political parties collapses, what is going to replace them? There is an obvious political vacuum. This starts to look very much like the Weimar Effect. Britain is run by a coalition and coalitions might become the rule as support for the main parties declines.

The first case scenario is the proposed change of names. The Conservative Party in Scotland, for example, wants to change its name because, since the previous Conservative government, they have become almost a non-entity in Scotland. This is happening even when there is a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition in power and, theoretically, they should be trying to maintain their links with the ruling Conservative Party.

As you can appreciate, we are referring to several organizations and to no one in particular because we are looking at the political map. It was said that after the expenses scandal, the new General Election would cleanse the House of Commons and restore trust. This hasn’t happened. On top of lack of trust, we see a climate of rising confrontation involving Trade Unions in an increasingly uncertain economic environment.

They criticize us for doing A and they criticize us for not doing A. This is a very funny position to be in. What is more, despite irrefutable evidence, they are still ruminating the same old fabrications.

The issue about Tower Hamlets is not about genetics. It is about something a lot more fundamental linked with rights, customs and values. Taking into account diversity of races and religions, we shouldn't underestimate the nature of political changes that are taking place right now. It took Britain centuries to arrive where we are now.

Britain was no stranger to religious conflicts. Religious tolerance was the exception rather than the rule. Women not always had the rights that women have today. There was a time when women lived in the political wilderness without having the right to vote. Today, we talk openly about many issues that many years ago would have been taboo subjects.

Having said that, by accepting as norm certain foreign cultures and religions, we could be turning back the clock and transforming Britain into an intolerant society and this cannot be acceptable. This is a certain risk and we have seen quite a few examples across Britain. Some of them are extreme cases leading to violence.

We are talking, but not exclusively, about forced marriages, female genital mutilation and honour killings and concepts about the place of women and men in society. Those in power should be extremely careful to avoid the risk of destroying customs, values and rights that are very much the essence of who we are today.

Friday, 9 September 2011

"Now that the three major parties have picked their candidates for the London mayoral election, it's left to the tiddlers to name their representatives for 2012. And yesterday the BNP contender threw his hat into the ring. "So much for xenophobic!" read the party's cleverly counter-intuitive announcement. "British National party chooses Italian for London Mayor." The Italian in question is BNP press officer Carlos Cortiglia, who, just to compound his cosmopolitan credentials, is Uruguayan by birth." The Independent Internet Version September 9th 2011

The BNP Mayoral Candidate said that "given the weight of evidence presented by London BNP and provided by records of the Argentine Ministry of Defence, it was understood that previous negative comments were not justified and had to be withdrawn and were withdrawn voluntarily by The Independent in its Internet version. I also understand that people in Argentina would have been extremely offended by the libellous implications produced by a left-wing organisation in Britain."

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

If there ever was a slap on the face against the United Kingdom, this is it. In Scotland, Scottish students will not pay University tuition fees and EU students from other countries outside the United Kingdom will not pay either.

English students could pay as much as 36,000 pound for the privilege of studying in Scotland. Is this what Labour meant when they implemented Devolution? So now, English, Welsh and Northern Irish are effectively third class in Scotland because anybody coming from other European Union countries will be paying nothing.

What is more, there are no democratic mechanisms in place to avoid such injustices. Those in Scotland that still support the United Kingdom should be asked: is this fair? Is this what you really want?

I reckon that such injustices will turn into extreme resentment against people who are merely at the receiving end of the actions of a government that again and again uses policies as direct provocation against the United Kingdom.

When none other than Kenneth Clarke MP, a Conservative politician, says that 78% of those involved in the riots were known criminals, you can see that all the excuses given by the BBC, the Labour Party and their acolytes don’t wash. Criminal records can be checked and verified. Against facts, left-wing ideological statements are worthless and powerless.

Kenneth Clarke goes even further. He is not talking only about individuals. He refers to a criminal class (not the working class, but the criminal class) made up of ‘individuals and families who are familiar with the justice system’. This might sound a bit like the expression ‘collateral damage’ but, translated from the language of political correctness, it means ‘individuals and families that are most probably out of work, that do not want to work, supported by welfare payments, living in subsidized accommodation, with lots of spare time and most probably linked to some of the more than 250 armed gangs that operate in London.'

What Kenneth Clarke calls ‘a broken penal system’ cannot cope and this is why we are forced to live in fear of being attacked by what he calls ‘a feral underclass’. This is the reality and not the rosy picture painted by left-wing operators or even by Prime Minister David Cameron who talks about ‘giving them more money’. Expensive houses worth millions of pound and the welfare system are not enough? The present welfare system and subsidized accommodation are precisely the reasons why the said ‘criminal class’ exists.

Throwing away more money to support undesirables will merely make the problem worse. What about the expression ‘crime does not pay’? Investing even more money to support criminals will show that ‘crime pays’ and will perpetuate a situation promoted by the Labour Party that used the welfare system to buy votes. In Labour Britain, entire families have been shown to be involved in crime. Given Labour’s‘modernising approach’ regarding what is and what is not a family, the problem will not go away merely with harsher prison sentences.

Monday, 5 September 2011

Today, the mass media are talking about Alistair Darling’s memoirs and the troubled relationships within the Labour Party in the United Kingdom (please remark that I don’t speak about the British Labour Party because there is no such a thing as the British Labour Party).

Did we ‘Joe Public’ know about the theatrical shows of unity of the Labour Party? Yes, we knew. We also knew about the man that stood up in Parliament and declared that he had ‘saved the world’. It was the ‘Blairites’ and the ‘Brownites’, the intrigues at the very heart of a political party that used to be a conglomerate of Trade Unions playing politics and then went to bed with whoever would keep them in power and this included big business, Ruppert Murdoch, dubious Asian businessmen, Muammar Gaddafi and Russian ‘businessmen’ like Boris Berezovsky.

The political party that was going to promote a Moral Foreign Policy worked in tandem with the Libyan dictator to facilitate American rendition flights. As the Libyan government of former hero Muammar Gaddafi comes to an end, the stash of documents incriminating the Labour Party comes to the surface.

What matters to us is the fact that Mr. Darling, whatever his relationship with the Labour Party or within the Labour Party, was very much involved in the launching of at least two wars – Afghanistan and Iraq – and was very much behind the policies of flood immigration and ‘Positive Discrimination’ with the aim of changing British demographics for political purposes. These are the facts that matter to us most and foremost.